1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 30,000,000 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 45,000,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them, from April 1, 2018 to April 1, 2019.

1. The following facts are acknowledged to the effect that there is no dispute or the entire pleadings, in addition to each macro- documentary evidence.

On January 20, 2012, the Defendant assumed the office of representative director of D (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) who is engaged in the wholesale and retail business, etc. of electronic communications equipment.

[2] On May 14, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into an investment contract with Nonparty Company to make an investment of KRW 30 million to allocate 20 million each of its shares.

After all, the plaintiff B invested the additional 15 million won on October 10, 2012.

Accordingly, Plaintiff A owned 2,00 shares of Nonparty A and 3,000 shares of Nonparty B respectively.

[A] 1, 2, 3, 4. After that, the non-party company was at the risk of business closure due to business deterioration, the plaintiffs prepared and submitted a written consent to the closure of business and agreed to the closure of business on December 24, 2012. On the same day, they received a letter of loan from the defendant that "the non-party company held by the plaintiffs is divided into 30%, 30%, and 40% of the shares of the non-party company held by the plaintiffs to be repaid in installments."

[2] On February 12, 2016, the Defendant prepared and delivered a letter of intent to repay each of the above debt amounts to the Plaintiffs by March 31, 2018.

[A] The instant letter of performance refers to “instant letter of performance”: Provided, That if the Defendant is unable to comply with the due date of performance, the Defendant agreed to re-consultation the date of performance under mutual agreement.

2. Determination

A. Article 605 of the Civil Act of the quasi-Loan Agreement provides, “In case where both parties are liable to pay money, or any other substitutes, not by a loan for consumption, if both parties agree to make the subject matter the object of a loan for consumption, it becomes effective as a loan for consumption.”

According to the above facts, the plaintiffs and the defendant reached December 24, 2012, and they were against the non-party company.